Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Hmm... I had no idea that Adolph Hitler could convince an entire country's populace to elect him and support him in getting rid of Jews and trying to conquer the world merely through his muscle contraction and planetary gravity. And all this time I thought it was the power of his oratorial skills and his skill at propaganda... see - you learn something new every day!

Benjamin is talking about literal power, as were you up until this post. This post, instead, is all about skills (your word, not mine), which you are figuratively approximating with power in a way that is completely irrelevant to the subject of this discussion.

Benjamin's assertion is that the only powers -- that is, scientifically speaking, energy sources for performing work -- to which the human body has access in and of itself are muscle power and gravity. Your sarcastic comment about Hitler's oratory not only fails to disprove this assertion, but fails to address it at all.

Dear Jun,
Please enlighten me here.Please tell me the name of anybody I have personally insulted on ANY comment i have made on this forum.Is this my first warning or are you considering sending me a final warning? Hope you arewell, Cheers, Joe.

I have made no secret of the fact that I am uncomfortable in general with the word ki, because it has no agreed-upon definition and because my impression is that it is generally misused by those who are not fluent speakers of Japanese. But what I am uncomfortable with is neither here nor there; I'm sure there are those who use the word effectively.

What really sets off my nonsense alarm, though, is when people start talking about "ki energy" or "ki power". These people are invariably talking about something invisible, immeasurable, and self-existent which we can manipulate in a non-muscular way to produce measurable effects in the physical world, not unlike the Force in Star Wars. And the scientific truth is that no such thing exists.

not unlike the Force in Star Wars. And the scientific truth is that no such thing exists.

qualification: that our current knowledge know of. the knowledge of the universe is currently beyond us. to say that we know everything that is possible and not, is very arrogant. we don't even know enough about our segment of the galaxy, much less the universe. what's impossible here, might be possible elsewhere.

as far as the Force goes, i like the Sith approach much better. the Sith way is to zap you with lightning then send you the electric bill afterward. if you don't get kill by the lightning, then the bill would kill you.

To be fair to the "non-muscular" guys, practitioners who have the juice consistently produce results which are asymmetrical to the amount of effort they put into their techniques. Even after seeing and feeling it for years, I am still amazed by just how effective the initiated can be while putting very little energy into the system.

I just like to razz the anti-resistance training and "non-muscular" guys because they are still dependant upon their musculature and gravity for all of their own force/power/work, no matter how deep down the rabbit hole they go. Since you are still dependant upon your musculature, you might as well have one that is high-functioning. A lot of serious health problems loom in the future of those who forego moving around heavy things.

qualification: that our current knowledge know of. the knowledge of the universe is currently beyond us. to say that we know everything that is possible and not, is very arrogant. we don't even know enough about our segment of the galaxy, much less the universe. what's impossible here, might be possible elsewhere.

Yes, but it's important to remember that in science saying that something could be possible means very little. I can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I haven't been all the way through the universe, so I can't say with certainty that there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster somewhere, but until someone provides evidence of its existence, it is sound science to operate under the assumption that there is no such thing.

Quote:

Benjamin Edelen wrote:

To be fair to the "non-muscular" guys, practitioners who have the juice consistently produce results which are asymmetrical to the amount of effort they put into their techniques. Even after seeing and feeling it for years, I am still amazed by just how effective the initiated can be while putting very little energy into the system.

Oh, absolutely. But I think the real physics behind that are a lot more interesting than any mysterious "energy" people can make up.

Yes, but it's important to remember that in science saying that something could be possible means very little. I can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I haven't been all the way through the universe, so I can't say with certainty that there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster somewhere, but until someone provides evidence of its existence, it is sound science to operate under the assumption that there is no such thing.
.

the sound scientific approach is to said "i do not know if it exists or not, based on my current level of understanding", not dismiss it entirely. the foundation of science is to admit we do not know and go about discovering it.

the sound scientific approach is to said "i do not know if it exists or not, based on my current level of understanding", not dismiss it entirely. the foundation of science is to admit we do not know and go about discovering it.

This is the kind of reasoning I hear from alien hunters, crypto-zoologists, and young-earth creationists. They would all have us believe that something is reasonably viable until it has been completely disproved. It's perfectly reasonable to believe aliens built the pyramids until we have scoured every corner of the universe and proven that there are no aliens. Bigfoot is as likely as not to be real until we have mapped every inch of wilderness on earth. Evolution is "just a theory" on equal footing with "intelligent design" until we can go back in time and document speciation. That's not how science works. Until there is evidence for something, there is no reason to believe it and no need to disprove it.

Actually Phi is exactly correct. One cannot prove a negative, so you have to be willing to accept that anything is possible as long as it is not in violation of things which have already been investigated using an evidence based methodology. No other assumption is logical. For example one could neither be certain of, nor certain of the lack of the existence of aliens. One can be relatively certain that young-earth creationism is bullshit, however, because geology, biology, and many other areas of study have produced absolutely insurmountable evidence contradicting young-earth creationism.

Until there is evidence for something, there is no reason to believe nor evidence not to believe it, and no need to prove it unless you are serious about finding out if your opinions have merit. Like you, I am a fan of Occam's Razor, but I must say that its application can hamper you in the area of martial arts and philosophy. In those areas it is often prescribed to hold your mind open to a wide range of possibilities so that you don't miss something which your preconceptions might have had you label impossible.

Actually Phi is exactly correct. One cannot prove a negative, so you have to be willing to accept that anything is possible as long as it is not in violation of things which have already been investigated using an evidence based methodology. No other assumption is logical. For example one could neither be certain of, nor certain of the lack of the existence of aliens. One can be relatively certain that young-earth creationism is bullshit, however, because geology, biology, and many other areas of study have produced absolutely insurmountable evidence contradicting young-earth creationism.

Until there is evidence for something, there is no reason to believe nor evidence not to believe it, and no need to prove it unless you are serious about finding out if your opinions have merit. Like you, I am a fan of Occam's Razor, but I must say that its application can hamper you in the area of martial arts and philosophy. In those areas it is often prescribed to hold your mind open to a wide range of possibilities so that you don't miss something which your preconceptions might have had you label impossible.

But we're not talking about martial arts or philosophy. Corky is asserting the existence of a specific force/power/energy which can produce measurable effects in the physical world; he is making a scientific assertion. This is not a subjective artistic or philosophical statement. There is no reason to believe him -- and ample reason not to -- until he provides verifiable scientific evidence for his assertion.

My point is that since his assertion is presented without evidence it CAN be discarded without evidence. It doesn't HAVE to be discarded, however. Every great idea and every failed idea starts out just like this. I'm definitely discarding this one but I will be open to other ideas because I am interested and only require plausibility to take on an idea, not absolute proof.

On the proving the negative. Bertrand Russell once wrote “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion”. This was used for decades in arguments with various theists. A good debate was had by all until a few years ago it was put to rest by Dr. Carolyn Porco imaging team leader of the Cassini Probe, who felt obligated to state the obvious. Every teapot, china or otherwise is circling the sun in an elliptic orbit and once a day it is between the Earth and Mars (I am paraphrasing). Trust a female PhD to know where the teapots are buried.

Hey, I used Russell's teapot in another thread similar to this recently. Stealing my perfectly good philosophical debate point... Can't you scientists leave us philosophers with a few good arguments?

Quote:

Hilary Heinmets wrote:

A good debate was had by all until a few years ago it was put to rest by Dr. Carolyn Porco imaging team leader of the Cassini Probe...

Coincidentally regarding our conversations last weekend, Cassini was (I think) the last major project my dad worked on at JPL before he left to go to Carnegie Melon... Actually I think it was called CRAF-Cassini at the time, but I'm not sure.

Oh, sorry, carry on with the teapots and spaghetti monsters...

On ki... The philosophy dude in me wants to ack that "existence" is a remarkably complex concept in practice. There are "modes" that we do tend to acknowledge such as the existence (in a sense) of the number 2, the idea of love, emotions, etc. Abstractions, explanation, higher order concepts, etc. and on and on. The problem is reification of an abstraction. Once you take an abstract concept but start to treat it as a "thing", as something more concrete, well, you open yourself to all sorts of logical problems. For further reference simply read some of the posts in this very thread.

And what I find astounding is that some seem to feel that saying "ki doesn't exist" as a material thing, as a fundamental particle, or even as anything else relatively familiar somehow detracts from the concept of ki as being valuable, useful, and loaded with useful meaning. It doesn't. Reification can be an ugly thing and it sinks many a philosophical argument. You don't have to make it "something", reify it, to discuss it and for it to have some value on some level or another. Even just as an abstraction of something larger and complex mixing together physical force, mental intent, and even dancing unicorns. Okay, not that last part... Although I am reminded of a video on Planet Unicorn, but that is just way too left field for this conversation...

But please, carry on. The logic guy in me has loved the various straw man arguments to go along with various ontological confusions interspersed with what is at best simplistic technology babble mixed with pseudo-science.

Just to make a plug for those reading this thread scratching their heads, new to all this -- Dr. Goldsbury has written some fantastic articles on history of Aikido available right here on this site. And of course Ellis Amdur's work "Hidden in Plain Sight" (available at Amazon now if I'm not mistaken) deals quite directly with the question of what this stuff is all about, at least in his opinion. And I don't recall reading any quantum physics in either source... And those articles have actual footnotes and stuff. You know, real academic rigor and all that...

Hey, I used Russell's teapot in another thread similar to this recently. Stealing my perfectly good philosophical debate point... Can't you scientists leave us philosophers with a few good arguments?

But please, carry on. The logic guy in me has loved the various straw man arguments to go along with various ontological confusions interspersed with what is at best simplistic technology babble mixed with pseudo-science.

In the end what does science, logic or philosophical debate matter? You either have something or you don't.....The only way to check is to get with folks you don't know and show it. The other thing is to have a clear understanding of where you are on the path...that takes getting with people you don't know to level set also. Really pretty simple.

Isn't that what you, I, Hillary, and others where doing this past weekend?
Gary

In the end what does science, logic or philosophical debate matter?
Gary

Yup...

Last weekend I was trying to do something I've been working on, practicing, etc. And got shut down because out of the 20 things to get right I managed to forget about one. So I failed and my partner shut me down unwilling to just let me have it. I smiled, said a bad word, then fixed it and did it again. Now lather, rinse and repeat over and over again. That was the weekend for me. But one time it happened I was reminded of a story about Samuel Johnson answering a question about Berkeley's idealism. Basically Berkeley held that there were no such thing as material objects. When Johnson was asked what he thought of Berkeley, the story goes he kicked nearby large rock and said "Thus I disprove Berkeley." It's easy to make claims but a heck of a lot harder to make it work when the rubber hits the road. Too many people spend way too much time talking in their self-affirming bubble environments rather than getting out with those actually doing and seeing how it works. For the physics discussion those making some claims really ought to bounce those ideas off actual scientists and see how that goes.

Me, I prefer kicking rocks as I form my theories. "Ouch. Okay, something's not right... Let me work on that and see what needs to get fixed." Pretty simple, really. Funny this thread revolves around themes of science. And yet those making scientific claims are doing exactly what the scientific method tries most to avoid. Theories are fine, but you also test them out. The physics stuff here is a huge area of incredibly complex study with a large body of highly intricate and repeatedly verified information to back it up. The same can be done in training -- you just have to be willing to put it on the line and not just with the adoring fans. Make it work and you *might* have something. Might.

And what I find astounding is that some seem to feel that saying "ki doesn't exist" as a material thing, as a fundamental particle, or even as anything else relatively familiar somehow detracts from the concept of ki as being valuable, useful, and loaded with useful meaning. It doesn't. Reification can be an ugly thing and it sinks many a philosophical argument. You don't have to make it "something", reify it, to discuss it and for it to have some value on some level or another.

Word. And it's an error both sides fall into--such as people on the ki-mystic side feeling they have to turn it into something concrete (quarks, fifth force) in order for it to have validity. They're playing on their opponents' turf and don't even know it.

I have made no secret of the fact that I am uncomfortable in general with the word ki, because it has no agreed-upon definition and because my impression is that it is generally misused by those who are not fluent speakers of Japanese. But what I am uncomfortable with is neither here nor there; I'm sure there are those who use the word effectively. ...

And the scientific truth is that no such thing exists.

You should have seen the sort of desperate expression on the face of practically any Asian I have dared to ask how she/he would define KI, be she/he of Chinese, Japanese or any other Asian cultural heritage. More so, when they were well into scientific thinking.

They simply did not use Ki as a defined entity, they had to add at least one other meme to this quite undefined "nonsensical" part, a meme in itself, and only then in this combination it started to take on "definite meaning".

So, looking for definite meaning in Ki as a stand-alone term itself seems to be a typical crazy western people predilection.

Gary, the only reason the debate matters is that while much of truth is subjective, in certain areas a great deal of human, societal and actual capital has been utilized to further understanding. To clutter that with disinformation, window dressed with jargon, offends my sensibilities and further confuses people. This era of humanity’s adolescence, when it is almost impossible to have an informed opinion about many things without being an actual expert, is unsettling to most people. Creating clutter only make it worse. We have a lot to think about in these days and only so much time to do so, removing noise at the source clarifies things. Back to Ki.

Keith I had to go look up reification thanks for that, certainly a concept we should all get familiar with in this day and age. It is one of the reasons that I tried to stress the acceptance of mental models, they may not be ultimate truth, but they sure can come in handy. In another thread on another site I had to throw a free body diagram at the readers because people were talking vectors, and they were wrong. I used them to define the stability testing problem not how to sit seiza and be stable; just deconstructed the simplified incoming force into its appropriate components. Define the problem first then solve it.

After that I was asked to explain another somewhat more complicated stability exercise with physics. To which I had to reply, to what end? Some simple discussion of the video in question sufficed to illuminate the major points without resorting to diagrams and matrices. Another said we should remove all the mumbo jumbo from the art. I replied that the mumbo jumbo was pretty well embedding the pedagogy, and provided useful mental models as well as feedback for all the little drills that together form the skill set that is connected and stable body. Sensation, while inexact and easily fooled is one of our best methods for training the body

The concept/feeling of shooting ki out your unbendable arm certainly is a better signal to train off of, and provides better results that just explaining that you are altering the direction of forces in the uke and nage interaction. I do both, ki sensation to train the body, force explanation to satisfy the mind. Similarly this weekend, the sensation of pushing out in all six directions while pulling silk was certainly easier to attain and wrap your head around than trying to exhaustively define the body tensegrity state. It is certainly more useful training feedback. As you guys know this stuff is hard to do correctly, let alone consistently, without thought and under real world conditions; there is always 1 of 20 to forget.

Stubbing one’s toe make for an excellent lesson with a high degree of retention. The key to “having something” is finding the right tools and information to solve the problem and then doing the work. These problems have been solved by many with only Bronze Age technology/knowledge modern thinking should help us understand more fully what is occurring, but doesn’t decrease the work required. Gary, Keith I’d like to think we did some work and moved a little closer both here and this weekend on the mat.